Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said Thursday that he's "proud" of the money he brought back to his state by way of earmarks, rebuffing new attacks by Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Santorum said that if he were elected president, he would oppose earmarks -- the process by which a lawmaker directs spending to a particular project -- because Congress had placed a temporary moratorium on the practice.

But he didn't back down from new attacks this morning by Perry, who labeled the surging Santorum a "prolific earmarker," and launched a radio ad, to boot, echoing that charge.

"If you look at the Constitution, the Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress; the Congress is the one that's supposed to spend the money," Santorum said on Fox News. "So the idea that earmarks is somehow against the Constitution or something that is illicit, that the congressman can or shouldn't do is simply, factually incorrect."

He was pressed as to whether the practice should still be encouraged, even if it weren't illegal, because of the public's perception that earmarking contributes to corruption in Washington.

"Ive defended my earmarks in the sense that I'm proud of the money that I did set aside for things that were priorities in my state instead of having bureaucrats do that," Santorum said. "But I've recognized that the American public have sort of seen this as a pox upon the congress and that's where the American public is today and as a president, it's sort of easy for me to say I'll oppose congressional earmarks."

The case for Perrys venture capitalismTheres a big difference between the Texas and statist approaches - There has been a lot of debate about Gov. Rick Perrys economic development funds. The criticism centers on the idea that the Texans funds create a Solyndra problem for him, that by investing in businesses that bring jobs to the state, Mr. Perry has the same job-creation approach President Obama displayed in backing federal loans to a solar-energy firm.

Equating the two men in this way provides a convenient symmetry, but its also a false comparison that misses why many free marketers are comfortable with Gov. Perry even while critical of Solyndra.

Oh, by the way, ethanol subsidies are dead. Details here and here: the short version is that the Senate back in June kicked off opposition to continued ethanol subsidies via a bipartisan amendment: it didnt pass, but Congress has just let both the ethanol subsidy and a restrictive foreign tariff (on Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol) lapse. Given that the Iowa caucuses will be finished by the time Congress reconvenes  and given that the House of Representatives is currently chock-heavy with people who spit at the very phrase ethanol subsidy  getting back either is going to be a problem for the domestic ethanol industry."....

Okay I get the point that Santorum is more of a DC insider than Perry.But they are all politicians and get and do favors. None of them is perfect. As you know I am no ones bot; I support them all until I see any huge red flags..I am concerned of all the candidates getting wiped out one by one until no one is left but Romney or Paul.

After reading about House Minority Whip Steny Hoyers outburst over my Overhauling Washington plan, I wonder if his obstructionism reflects your own opposition and that of the Democratic Caucus to urgent reforms the American people so vehemently demand.

After increasing the debt by $4 trillion in less than three years, no one can believe that Americans are satisfied with business as usual, and that a permanent political class in Washington can get us out of the mess you and your colleagues have created.

A part-time Congress with half the pay would still make $38,000 a year more than the average American family. Do you truly oppose lawmakers spending more time in their districts? Is it so important for the Washington power brokers to build their fiefdoms of influence, including providing bailouts to Wall Street while businesses on Main Street are being boarded up every day?

Here is the fundamental question: do you believe Washington is broken? Before answering that question, consider these facts:

1) the Washington Metro area is now the most affluent metropolitan area in the country because lobbyists, contractors, elected officials and bureaucrats have been insulated from the economic ruin prevalent in the private sector;
2) Congressional office budgets have doubled since 2000 while employers all across America are laying off workers;
3) Our nations total debt is nearing the size of our nations economy, increasing our dependence on competitors like China;
4) The number of Americans out of work has increased by more than two million since January 2009, despite the massive stimulus package Democratic leaders promised would revive the economy, and;
5) on top of the job-killing spending policies of the previous Congress, employers are faced with a staggering $1.1 trillion in costs related to federal regulatory compliance.

Do you truly believe the answer to massive debt, over-regulation and bloated big-government policies is to continue to protect the status quo, which enriches and empowers Washington insiders at the expense of the American People?

My plan would overhaul Washington, eliminating certain agencies and reducing the size and scope of others. It will force Congress to make the tough decisions to balance the budget or require a further reduction in their pay. It would end lifetime appointments to future appointees to the federal bench. I dont want to tinker around the edges when the American People demand a complete overhaul of Washington.

Let me conclude with an invitation: I am in Washington Monday and would love to engage you in a public debate about my Overhaul Washington plan versus the congressional status quo. I think it would be a tremendous service to the American public to see a public airing of these differences. Let the people decide. If Monday doesnt work, perhaps we could find a time in Iowa over the course of the next month to discuss these issues in front of the people of Americas heartland.

Should you choose not to respond or engage in such a healthy discussion, I will take it to mean you will continue your obstructionist ways in the face of much needed Washington reform.

I don’t view drudge doing this.Santorum jumped up in the polls.It is his turn to be eaten by his own.Perry, sadly may not be given another chance to be eaten by his own.I don’t like Romney and am not too thrilled with Gingrich.

Perry makes it so hard. The minute I decide to give him a chance and he goes after a good conservative. Why not go after Romney? Perry is always going after people who don’t deserve it. Very disappointed!!!!!

12
posted on 12/29/2011 2:24:59 PM PST
by napscoordinator
(Happy New Year's! The Year the Nightmare is OVER!!!!!)

No offense I don’t mean this towards you really but you make my point.We are eating our own until Romney and bat shit crazy Paul are the only ones standing.Romney is made out by the media to be the king.It is Romney vs. the tea party and the tea party is eating they’re own for Romney.Yet each candidate struggling to get up in the polls has to smear the next that gets a few points ahead and in the end we have no one but Romney.I remember reading some story that Axelrod wants this hashed out as long as it can be and no rallying behind any one. They divide and will conquer all because my candidate not yours ________ just has to win.This won’t be nor is a normal primary.I believe the days are gone this time that the state of SC picks the eventual nominee.Because it is the GOP vs the tea party Obama wins;especially when the true tea party candidates are all being bashed and tossed aside as Romney shines.

“They are ALL campaigning.
Its a campaign to win the nomination.
Geeze..”

Thank you. For heaven’s sake, all the candidates are out to win, but for some reason Perry is expected to shut up and keep silent. Wasn’t Santorum jabbing Bachmann this morning? But THAT was different.

It’s a big problem, though...why? Because it hides spending in bills that are supposedly about something else and interferes with accountablity for it. It hooks the spender and the recipient of the earmark onto the federal government spigot...or I could’ve used a less nice word.

People say MJ isn’t so bad. But if it’s a gateway drug to other drugs, then it’s that old slipperly slope thing.

Perry often says things that others aren’t yet saying and it sounds strange to some ears.

He is way ahead of the game. If you would go to the mat to defend earmarks, you’re part of the problem not the solution.

Pretty good for a “dumb” guy.

Perry is a state power guy, as in the Constitution. If a community or a state want something, hey, go for it.

But for every community and state to depend on the Feds to fund stuff they want...

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.